quote:Originally posted by camus: ut if you look at the case of Iraq, they did discontinue their WMD programs, and to a large extent they were willing to cooperate with the UN inspections (eventually)
posted
Edit: whoops, subject was dropped while I was writing this. Please move on. Nothing to see here.
Original post:
As a disinterested party, allow me to butt in where I don't belong to say:
digging_hoIes: twinky was trying to explain why what Iran is doing makes sense *based on a particular set of premises*. (One of which being that they're already crazy.)
He did not say he believed those premises were *true*.
When I first read his post, I found it useful and in no way construed it to be a defense of Iran's policies. Merely an explanation.
Your intial post missed this point, but it seemed an honest if ignorant mistake. But your continued assertion that he's defending Iran, despite his denial, and despite others interpreting the post differently (and correctly) is simply baffling.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: From Iran's perspective, though, it looks like being belligerent worked out okay for North Korea. I think that's part of why they're going this way.
Well, I *hope* they are capable of doing a little more analysis of what has happened with N Korea... but you may be right.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, Air-defense technology has changed by leaps-and-bounds in the last 20 years. Iran in particular has been modernizing their air defenses as rapidly as possible, especially with the deployment of the long-range SA-10 missile system.
I do agree with you that Israel has a very competent air force that would ultimately prevail. I just hope that we don't find out how this scenario would play out in real life.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid we are going to either find out how the Israelis will do or find out for ourselves just how effective those SA-10 batteries are. I hope not, but it's looking ugly.
From a tactical standpoint, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses technology has changed, too... the use of RPVs and the continued improvement of the HARM missle are significant advances.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- marching with the protesters -- signaled he stood by his remarks, even as Iranian officials tried to defuse the issue. [...] But on Friday, Iran's Moscow embassy -- often used by Tehran to issue statements on foreign policy --said Ahmadinejad did not mean to "speak up in such sharp terms."
I find it interesting that the rest of the Iranian government seems to be trying to downplay the comments, while their president is standing by them. I don't really know enough about power structure in the Iranian government to draw much from this, but I wonder if the president is saying this to stir up support from his anti-Israel base?
It'd be a bit of a relief if this was more about political posturing than an actual foreign policy. Not as much as if the hatred wasn't going on at all, of course, but yelling is preferable to invading.
posted
It does seem that in a way, Iran doesn't realize it is calling for its own suicide by doing this....
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, that might not be the best idea while there are still more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iran. Anti-radiation meds are great and all, but we're talking long-term effects here.
I still think that Israel's most likely course of action, if they do something directly, will be to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
quote:Jim-Me wrote: Well, I *hope* they are capable of doing a little more analysis of what has happened with N Korea... but you may be right.
If they are, I'm sure they're wilfully ignoring what that analysis tells them. In addition to the religious fanatacism in this instance, in the general case a strong sense of pride is fairly ingrained in the Arab psyche. Being conciliatory looks like caving in. Remember the Iraqi Information Minister?
Also, I will stand by the words and phrasing of my original post, Jim. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted it, because that absolutely was not my meaning, but it did not say or imply what you and digging_holes took from it. Rakeesh and Seatarsprayan both did a good job of elaborating on what my post said.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see the US trying to keep Israel out of it because we've already threatened to attack Iran anyhow...and we already have a pretty firm set of Allies and enemies in the region that won't be drastically affected by US aggression against Iran.
However, Israel has, essentially two types of relationships in the region-- those who barely tolerate them and those waiting for an excuse to attack them. Any one or all of those relationships could cross the line to open warfare if Israel attacks Iran.
And I think the US would like to avoid that instance.
Edit: Twink, we're cool... you and others clarified enough where you were coming from... my comments were only intended to confirm that I, too, misinterpreted your first post. And you know I like you, so I wasn't looking for an excuse to read it that way.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think everyone would like to avoid that instance. It would result in a lot of dead people.
Added: Or rather, every rational person would like to avoid that instance. The leadership of Iran is obviously excluded.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why should the US do anything? Israel has enough nukes to glassify Iran.
If Israel launches a nuclear missile at Iran, the U.S. would no longer be able to justify supporting Israel as an ally. The U.S. cannot be seen as endorcing the use of nuclear weapons as part of any conventional warfare.
Without U.S. intervention, Islamic countries would have free-reign to attack Israel. Regardless of Israel's military might, a middle-eastern coalition could inflict massive casualties on Israel.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wouldn't be fun for the Islamic countries, either... and Israel wouldn't start nuclear, but against a major Arab coalition, they'd probably go there eventually. So yes, as Twinky said, a lot of people would die...
And the reason the US would care enough to go to war in place of Israel is that our ultimate goal of stabilizing the region would be pretty well done in by a major Arab-Israeli rematch. (I know there are some who think it's done in already, but I think that's a short-sighted view).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It wouldn't be fun for the Islamic countries, either...
That wasn't quite my point, but in a war of attrition, guess who has more bodies to throw into the grinder?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it would be a war of attrition, but with incredibly lopsided firepower and competence. Whether Israel's firepower and training advantages would be enough remains to be seen... but I think it's possible, maybe even likely, [added: given the historical examples]. Nonetheless, I don't think it's a road Israel will go down [because I think] they see it as an absolute last resort. Similarly, I think they will be somewhat reluctant to sabotage Iran's nuclear program because that might spark just such a conflict.
I think that at the moment Israel is waiting to see what Russia and the EU (the main consumers of Iranian oil, and presently the main negotiators with Iran) can accomplish, if anything. I don't know how long they will be willing to wait but I think if their threshold is reached then they will take matters into their own hands and sabotage the Iranian nuclear program.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering Israel's perspective I imagine they are already involved in sabotage. The EU and Russia don't exactly have stellar track records when it comes to political support of Israel. Additionally, to put the lives of every one of your citizens, women and children included, in the hands of a foreign power half the world away that may or may not muster the political will to fight with you if needed is not a leap of faith most would be willing to take. The world's hunger for Middle Eastern oil makes nations inclined to appease those in possesion of it. I think that Israel may have concluded (probably correctly) that nothing substantial will happen and they had best take matters into their own hands.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iran is banking on what an endgame scenario looks like. If Israel attacks Iran because it has nukes, all the Arabs in the region get fired up and Anti-Israeli sentiment explodes. As a result, Anti-US sentiment explodes right in a time when the US is trying desperately to brighten its image and get the heck out of Iraq.
It's in America's best interests to stop Iran from getting nukes, but sadly, it is overextended and has little influence left in the region. If Iran were to say, invade Iraq, the Shi'a Arabs in Iraq, which until now were the only friends to Americans, would become a whole new obstacle.
Further, America has no power to stop Iran from doing anything. Sanctions won't do a thing to dissuade them, and they know we can't militarily force them to do anything, so they know we are simply shouting at the wind, with no power to stop them. Iran has enemies to the north, east and west, and Israel across the region. It A. Feels it needs nukes to secure its long term protection and B. Sees how America reacts to N. Korea and its weapons, and to Chinese nukes, and knows that nuclear weapons are a major trump card when it comes to dealing with Americans.
It's a calculated risk, and I think it is a smart one from Iran's point of view. Assuming Iran DOES get nukes, America will try and do everything in its power to stop Israel from making overt aggressive movements. Israel inciting anger in the Muslim world incites anger against the US as well, and we really don't want that right now.
It's a bet that puts the entire region a little closer to total war, but there are a lot of forces working in Iran's favor.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your post seems to deal primarily with the advantages Iran gains by having nukes, and you make several good points that I agree with. However, to bring it back more to the topic, what advantages do you think Iran gains by announcing their intention to wipe out Israel to the world at large?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: America will try and do everything in its power to stop Israel from making overt aggressive movements.
I'm willing to bet this might include overt aggression on our part as well. And I think we are capable of military intervention... and with Bush's popularity already minimal, preventing all-out war in the middle east might be worth the political cost of American intervention to him, as I was saying earlier.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're assuming Congress would go along with any plans Bush might have to intervene. I believe they would not. There would be zero public support for such an endeavor, especially since Bush is threatening Syria. Imagine how that plays out to the public. Bush invades Afghanistan: Good stuff. Bush invades Iraq: Bad stuff. Bush threatens Syria: Nice gesture, but we aren't going to war over it. And then on top of all that he threatens Iran too? Just how many wars does he want to start over there? He'll never be able to sell a war to the public, and with no congressional support, he will be forced to abandon the endeavor.
BQT -
The advantage to annoucing now is to judge the reaction from the world. If Iran senses America condemning Iran while behind the scenes trying to calm Israel down, then they know they have a winning plan, and they should proceed as fast as possible. At the same time, it brings Iran together, and the President is getting in touch with his people. You'll notice the clergy, who more or less rule the country, haven't been saying much about the issue. Maybe the President is trying to make a power grab through popular support. Not a great sign for Israel, but power players will always try and gather more power to themselves.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The current Israeli government wouldn't have the cojones to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. Nor to attack pre-emptively.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The president can intervene militarily without congressional approval... or the nation's approval. Again, he is in the wringer alreay, he has nothing to lose...and if by doing so he can prevent all out war in the area, he should.
The question, if it comes to military intervention to stop Iran from developing nukes, is whether Israel should be allowed to do it themselves because of their sheer competence, or should we try to do it for political reasons.
If we wait long enough and are unsuccessful diplomatically, I have no doubt that Israel will intervene militarily, and little doubt that they will do so successfully. Whether that intervention is covert as Twinky suggests, or overt as the bombing of the Osirak reactor was, is still a question, but they will do something.
In short, I completely disagree with starLisa, but willingly admit to not being an expert on the area politics.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, legally he can do so, but doing so will cost the Republican party the Congress and the Presidency between the midterms and the next election. He has nothing to lose for himself, but his party will scream themselves dry trying to stop him. To say that he has nothing to lose at all though is misleading in the extreme.
He has a LOT to lose.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're wrong about that, starLisa. Taking in your opinion a weak and stupid policy in dealing with 'kill-us-by-inches' enemies such as suicide bombers is quite different from taking a weak and stupid policy in dealing with 'kill us all at once' enemy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i know a little about Iran, and a little less about Israel, but what i do know about both is that the US has a vested interest in keeping Iran quiet and Israel from doing anything that could start a new rash of suicide bombings. i don't think i should say anything else or i'll get in trouble. bottom line- domestic politics should be piddling next to a "suggestion" from an informed senior military official. at least i hope so.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was shocked by it because this was the government speaking in open forums, not because the sentiment hadn't been expressed in the past. Personally, I think it is perhaps the stupidest thing that the Iranian government could have done. It places them squarely in the sights for the next round of regime change, IMHO. The jury is still out as to whether the US and Britain will commit long-term to a policy of continuous interference in the governments of this region.
From a Western perspective, the goal of stability is going to be far more important than the goal of democracy. Sad to say it, but if we need the oil from this region, a known commodity is better than any new regime.
UNLESS the current people become belligerent and unfriendly, like Saddam or the Taliban.
Threats against neighboring states, especially oil producing ones, but even threats against Israel, if they can't be ignored (and I submit this one CANNOT BE because of the way it was delivered) are just going to be used to ratchet up the pressure for the offending state to be the next one to benefit from a democratic overhaul.
I believe we've already got a plan for Iran's invasion sitting in a drawer somewhere at the Pentagon. Whether we activate it will depend on a LOT of factors, including the actions of that government over the next few days and weeks.
Now, why would they risk this? Perhaps because they feel they have little to lose. We don't know what negotiations have gone on between Iran and other Arab states for mutual protection. Maybe they're confident that Opec would shut off our oil, or that we would be barred from using other Arab nations as staging grounds should we decide to punish the Iranian leadership.
Or, they are crazy jihadists who feel like it's high time for the holy war to be ignited and hope that Israel (and a few others) are wiped out in the process.
Or, they are bluffing. One way to make people think you are more well-equipped than you are is to act like you can back up your statements, so you make outrageous ones. It's a technique many New Yorkers use when walking through dangerous neighborhoods. You act like you're completely insane and the local gangs leave you alone.
Honestly, I don't think we have enough information to figure out precisely what Iran's game is. But I can tell you that I expect in very short order some sort of statement from that regime offering to barter something like grudging acceptance of Israel in exchange for loosened restrictions on their nuclear program. Some such BS.
I suspect it's all posturing.
When you have nothing with which to bargain (and thus nothing left to lose), you offer the outrageous and hope someone nibbles.
But, really, this is just about the stupidest thing (short of launching an actual attack) that Iran's leaders could have done at this juncture.
As for pursuing nuclear weapons...I suspect they either already have them (unlikely) or they are so far from ever getting them that this posturing is a smoke screen to keep the rest of the world guessing.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
First off, let me say that this is wild conjecture... it may not need to come to that...
but if it comes to military intervention, *and* if the US can do it without causing a $h1tstorm where Israel can't, then I think there are ways the party could distance themselves from Bush after he intervenes...
But whether they can or not, I would much rather see Bush and the whole party go down in flames than see wholesale mayhem in the Middle East... and when it comes down to it, I think they would, too. I'd be very surprised if those men didn't take their responsibility that seriously. The power they have wouldn't mean anything, even to them, if they didn't.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would it take for that level of military intervention? Iran ISN'T Iraq. They aren't pushovers. Their military isn't going to run and disband at the site of American tanks. We aren't going to have free reign over the skies like we did before. The rest of the Middle East isn't going to sit idly by and watch us do it either.
How are we going to handle the pissed off Shi'a Muslims in Iraq? For that matter, how are we going to keep troop levels in Iraq constant? Hell, we'd have to ADD troops to Iraq for stability if this happened. How are we going to try and keep some semblence of order in Afghanistan? Either we empty North Korea, Okinawa, and Europe of US troops to make it happen, which even then isn't a dent of what we would need, or we empty the United States of troops, which leaves the cupboard dangerously bare.
I think everyone underestimates Iran. They aren't a worldclass power, but they also aren't pushovers. Iraq and Afghanistan were the two weakest military and political regimes in the region. Iran has a military that will fight, and while it isn't up to the standards of the US, it can and will cause massive amounts of damage, and I'm betting a few thousand US troops will die from major combat operations alone, to say nothing of the insurgency that WILL follow the take over.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iraq was definitely not the weakest military regime in the region in the first Gulf War, but they were a pushover compared to the USA and the Coalition.
FYI, in a conventional war, we would have undenied air superiority over Iran. The rest of your conclusions, though, I agree with.
Which is why we wouldn't go in on the ground, in a big long-term way. No, we (or Israel) would find the nukes, and destroy them in a quick and surgical strike.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Iranian President is standing by his words, but other parts of his government are retreating from them. Here is a Google News list of related stories:
I was mostly referring to talk of regime change in Iran, which would require a ground invasion.
And yeah we would probably attain air superiority fairly quickly. Does anyone have any information on the CURRENT state of Iran's air force and their air defense radar systems?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should the US do anything? Israel has enough nukes to glassify Iran.
"that might not be the best idea while there are still more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Ira[q]"
Yep, and they ain't likely to allow Iran free passage across their area of control. Turkey ain't likely to allow Iranian troops passage. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis funded Saddam's war against Iran, so transport across the ArabianSea isn't an option either. In other words, the threat is purely posturing to gain&strengthen support from the idiots. With any luck, the US will say "naughty, naughty", and the idiots will back Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even more. Besides, "Iran...[is]...saying it stood by its U.N. commitments and Iran would not use violence against another country."
"If Israel launches a nuclear missile at Iran, the U.S. would no longer be able to justify supporting Israel as an ally."
Israel ain't gonna nuke Iran unless Iran attacks with a WeaponofMassDestruction first. If for no other reason, an Israeli first use would be admission that they possess nuclear arms. Then the US would be obligated under its own laws to cut off ~$3billion per year in aid, military cooperation, and probably another few billion dollars per year of private contributions to and trade with Israel. And if Iran did launch a first strike with WoMDs against Israel, there ain't nobody who's gonna be angry at Israel, at least nobody who isn't already angry. More to the point, an attack on Israel with WoMDs would justify Israel's possession of nukes. Therefore no embargo on foreign aid, private donations, military cooperation, business dealings, etc would be forthcoming after a retaliatory strike.
"You're assuming Congress would go along with any plans Bush might have to intervene"
With forces already in place in Iraq, the ArabianSea, and the IndianOcean, Dubya doesn't need funding authorization from Congress. In fact, Congress doesn't have to go along with anything: Dubya doesn't have to obtain Congressional approval for the use of military force until 90days after an intervention begins. It took the US 42days to overrun Iraq. Actually less than 27days, which is when the OccupationAuthority set up shop. It ain't as if the Congress is gonna be willing&able to remove the President from Office within 27days.
If the US learned anything from Iraq, any intervention in Iran wouldn't involve occupation. So it would take even less time. Just take out the military armories, artillery, aircraft, transport, tanks, command&control, bunkers etc, and any and all governmental facilities while the facilities were in use; including those being used for weapons development, by the Iranian Parliament, by the political parties backing the Iranian President, and especially those being used by the Supreme Council of Clerics. Then withdraw to Iraq, and let the Iranians reform their own government. And if the US doesn't like it, wipe out the government again.
Simple fact is, the IranianRevolution was protected by the USSR across the border. Or rather by the US's desire to keep Iran militarily strong enough to present at least a credible delaying force should the USSR have decided to invade. The USSR doesn't exist any more. There is no military reason to leave any portion of the Iranian military intact, let alone strong. Or to leave any portion of the Iranian government alive, let alone strong. If there is chaos, "Hey, it ain't our problem."
And no, it ain't gonna happen. Just pointing out that US -- or for that matter, Israeli -- military capability isn't the limiting factor.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think you're wrong about that, starLisa. Taking in your opinion a weak and stupid policy in dealing with 'kill-us-by-inches' enemies such as suicide bombers is quite different from taking a weak and stupid policy in dealing with 'kill us all at once' enemy.
You don't get Israel, then. The training we received during the first Gulf War got us out of the habit of actually responding to massive acts of war from the outside. Short of an actual attack with a declaration of war on the part of the country or countries attacking, the Israeli government will sit on its hands. With thumbs pointed upwards, I might add.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why do they need to cross all that land to attack Israel with nukes? They could easily buy mid range missiles or long range missiles from China or especially from North Korea. Distance and access aren't issues.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Israel could intercept those relatively low-speed missiles with their Patriot-derived Arrow anti-missiles. Then proceed to use their airpower to take out Iran's long-range offensive capability, as well as anything else they wanted.
If Iran launched a first strike against Israel, the US would cheer the Israelis on as they flew over Iraq. And I doubt that Iraq, SaudiArabia, or Turkey would do anything more than the lodge the standard diplomatic protest for violation of their airspace. Well after Iran was sufficiently punished, their public talk might be more hostile. But that's pretty much politically-mandatory in the MiddleEast. Privately, they'll be smirking at the Iranian leadership's stupidity.
Besides, any Iranian missile attack would travel through airspace controlled by either the US or the Saudis. Neither of which would find that violation to be a matter to just shrug off.
posted
The danger to Isreal is not a missle attack it is a truck borne Nuke. I believe we have the look through capability to spot anything as dense as a nuke, but do we have the machinery in Isreal? I do not know.
It is clear that Iran hopes to inspire the rest of Islam with its fierce rhetoric, now that the US is looking more and more ambigious as an enemy that Islam can hate, and without such an enemy there is no point too Islam. The Koran is a call to unity in war against and enemy, can't not have and enemy can they?
I look forward to the day they give Isreal the provocation it needs to clobber them, notice how many of our actions lately are "near the Syrian border" ? Well you need to ask yourself which side of that border they are taking place on. We are a fingers breadth away from air strikes against Syria and having the finest fighter pilots in the world pounding Iran behind us would be a blessing. Hell in five years we might have Every nation from Afganistan to Lybia in a loose democratic federation under the Boots of the American Infantry! Yeah!
Pax Americana for the 21 Century. Islam holds that there is only peace in victory, what they forget is that the corallary is that the losers also get to enjoy peace too, and they are poised to lose as badly as ever any empire bent group ever has. The 1940's Nazi's would give us ten times the fight the Arab's can.
posted
One of the favorite ways for totalitarian/corrupt governments to stay in power is to distract the people with scapegoats.... Cuba has America and Iran has Israel. While giving lip service to something eventually makes it true (like eventually getting themselves so riled up they really do invade) I doubt Iran would actually do anything right away. They just want to rally angry people at something that is not their own government.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow BC. I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush there. I know many muslims personally. I think they'd be surprised by your summary of their beliefs.
And, speaking as a US citizen, the last thing I want for the world is a Pax Americana in this century or any other. I think it'd be bad for the world and bad for us as a country.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's another rationale, if you are the Iraqi government:
The current US government has shown that it will use past sins as a reason to attack you. And if those reasons turn out to be invalid, well, then its too late, isn't it?
So you are Iran, and have been known to (and probably are, to some extent) try and gain the necessary Stuff to become a nuclear power. You were recently elected as part of the religious extremists re-asserting their power in a nation that has shown a tendency to go secular if not clamped down. You know that even if you destroyed your weapons programs, there is a chance that you could be invaded anyway, because to the US, and especially the US govt, you've always been sneaky SOBs (a point that may or may not be freely admitted to by many in your govt). Not to mention that it weakens your status within your more local geopolitical stage. So, it would seem plausible, with that sort of perceived backdrop, that the only patriotic thing to do is to do your darnedest to get nukes, and generally saber-rattle so that your fellow extremists will be supportive, particularly in your own nation.
EDIT: That is, the only way to have a high certainty of keeping the US from invading you is to go N. Korea.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Which is why we wouldn't go in on the ground, in a big long-term way. No, we (or Israel) would find the nukes, and destroy them in a quick and surgical strike.
A full-scale invasion of Iran is impossible for several reasons.
Air defense issues are largely irrelevant. The Iranians have learned well the lesson from the Israeli raid on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor: don't put all your eggs in one basket. Iran has dispersed it's nuclear weapon program into a network, it's not a point-source like Osirik.
And US and Israeli intelligence are not confident they can pinpoint the whole network.So a "quick and surgical strike" is also impossible. The US and Israel militaries have already dismissed this option.
Rakeesh isn't the only one here saying it's a viable option, just one of several. And they're wrong.
Which leaves...the UN, and diplomacy? Sanctions?
The larger point is this: sooner or later an Arab/Muslim nation (not counting Pakistan) WILL get nukes. And will probably use them, if things don't change.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
What, you speak for the US and Israeli intelligence services, and their militaries?
You can tell what they're confident of and what they're not, and what they've dismissed and haven't?
Pretty much the only thing you can credibly post about is that the Iranians probably have not put all of their nuclear weapons development assets into one easily destroyed location.
But even if they've put them in twenty easily destroyed locations, it is still within our (definitely) and the Israelis (possibly) capabilities.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Morbo is probably more right than not. The Iranians aren't stupid. They'll have their bases all over the place. Underground, in elementary schools, in Mosques, everywhere, to make it either impossible to locate, or politically devastating for a foriegn power to attack them.
Furthermore, Bokonon is correct, the Iranians have no reason to stop researching nukes. America has already more or less said that if we think you have nukes, it doesn't really matter if you actually have them or not, and we don't care if you try and prove it one way or another, we'll still attack. Given that irrational force, I'd try twice as hard to get them as fast as humanly possible.
And aspectre, how is Israel going to shoot down a missile with a nuclear warhead? The missiles Iran could buy from N Korea ARENT Scuds. ICBMs travel at what? 27 THOUSAND miles per hour? No way in hell a patriot on its best day could hit a missile going even 75% that fast.
I highly doubt Iran would attack Israel with nukes. The more probable attack scenario, if there ever was one, would be sympathetic members of the Iranian defense apparatus "accidentally" letting a nuke fall into terrorists hands. The Iranians come clean to the world, yes, we've been developing nukes, and oops, one got away, would the UN please help us find it?
That gives them plausible deniability, regardless of what is going on in the backroom, now they are the ones trying to forestall a new world war. And even after a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, if Israel responds with its own nukes, they're in the same boat as Iran, only worse. They will both be powers that claimed not to have nukes, only both did, but Iran was the nice guy who tried to stop a war from happening, and Israel is the unhinged madman blowing the crap out of Tehran.
Iran comes off the victim, Israel comes off the aggressor, and loses billions in foreign aid in the process. It would devastate their economy and evaporate any moral high ground they had to begin with, which leaves them, not easy pickings, but vulnerable to the Arab states around them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is Clinton era thinking, The answer is, if we need Intel we put enough boots on the ground to get it. If Iran proves itself with a nuclear attack, it will have NATO and US forces in Tehran in three weeks, then we can send the Space Balls out to comb the desert!
I am tired of these little sabre rattling villains and their agendas, they think the world will go on forever as it always has and they are simply wrong in perspective and wrong in ideology. The world is poised to change dramatically, in climate, in demographics and in economics over the next century. We cannot keep dealing with these idiots over and over when we need to face challenges that threaten us all.
America is poised to be the salvation of the Human Race in terms of long term survival beyond the next global upheaval that could set us back to the stone age. To threaten us, to drain our resources away, to attack us at all is an attack on the human race itself and should be treated as such. To join us is to be part of the next stage of social evolution, beyond one world economics and into economics based on universal rather then local scarcity.
That means that the rarest and most valuable things in the universe, life and human attention, will have the preeminent value, while oil will just be goo.
posted
Sure, I'm an eminence grise for both the US and Israeli governments.
Seriously though, it's not 20 easily destroyed facilities-- it's N hardened targets, where N is unknown. The targets are hardened because the Iranians also learned the lesson of the Six Day War: unarmored assets are like tissue paper in an inferno to the Israeli AF, as the Egyptians learned by losing almost their entire AF.So even if we destroy 50% or 75% of their nuclear weapons network, we haven't done anything but set them back.
A commited US invasion is the only viable military option, and it's very unlikely politically if not impossible to occur, mainly due to our extensive troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This link demonstrates the near-impossiblity of Israel blowing up the Iranian nuclear program. With US support, the odds would change of course. But still, air power alone cannot counter the Iranian nuclear program. Besides, they could already have bought nukes from the North Koreans. the Pakistanis, or a former USSR nation.
quote: Ever since members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, an Iranian opposition group labeled as a terrorist organization (some members are militant, most are now just attached to the opposition's efforts) disarmed in Iraq in late May, 2003 and gave intelligence to the US, the pressure on Iran has built up. The political branch of MEK reported on May 26th that Iran had two uranium-enrichment facilities west of Tehran, which operate as "satellite plants" to the larger facility centered at Natanz. The Iranians reportedly had already installed several centrifuges at one of the sites. The purpose of the sites, besides to assist in the nuclear program, is to take over the work of the Natanz site should it be bombed. The dissidents explained that there were small, dispersed sites around Iran to prepare for an Israeli or American air campaign, and they listed 8 businesses used as front companies to obtain components for the program.[7] They confirmed that the goal set by Iran was to become a nuclear power in 2005.[8] [omitted section] By the summer of 2004, the uranium enrichment program will be finished, and therefore, unstoppable by anything short of regime change. At the end of 2007, the infrastructure will be large enough and advanced enough to allow for the production of up to 15 nuclear weapons a year.[10] Eventually,no air raid would be able to destroy their plans. The facilities were large in number, were disguised, and dispersed. Some were even hardened to protect against explosions.[11]
posted
Lyrhawn, thanks for agreeing. That is a scary and all-to-plausible scenario, sadly. Iran really would be insane to launch a first strike with missles on Israel. But a truck or ship delivered nuke detonated in Israel seems likely, with or without some "oops, we lost a nuke" cover story. In fact, I almost consider it inevitable in the next 20 years. If not the Iranians, some other group will get the bomb and do it. Israel's only hope is if their border security and technology can intercept such a device.
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: I am tired of these little sabre rattling villains and their agendas,
You and me both BC. Look in a mirror and you'll see why.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect that Israel most likely has a 'Fail Safe' system that will automatically Nuke not just Iran but half the Middle East should they suffer such an attack, Tel Aviv is the obvious target, nobody wants to destroy Jerusalem. It matters little how Iran would look morally, after the counterstrike the reality will be a nation in ruins. People with leadership that short sighted deserve what they get. The US Government is not irrational, in fact the US is recognizably playing by local rules that these countries recognize, we are bigger, we are tougher and by God Almighty you will not attack us with impunity. Nothing irrational about that at all.
Also to my knowlege there are no ICBM's in Korean hands, they can reach Japan but not the US so that seems to be implied...
posted
I am not to be cast as a villian, I of course am one of the Heroes. We look alot alike from the outside, the third type, the coward often cannot tell us apart.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
